1 / 6

CAPWAP MUX Proposal: Addressing NAT Traversal, QoS, and Scaling Issues

This proposal suggests the use of the CAPWAP MUX protocol to address issues related to NAT traversal, Quality of Service (QoS), and scalability in enterprise WLAN networks. The protocol utilizes separate UDP ports for control and data traffic, allowing existing network infrastructure to continue functioning while enabling differentiated services based on the MUX header. Additionally, the proposal advocates for the implementation of keepalive mechanisms to address NAT traversal and diagnostics issues.

lesliewallace
Download Presentation

CAPWAP MUX Proposal: Addressing NAT Traversal, QoS, and Scaling Issues

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. MUX Issue Pat R. Calhoun

  2. Where we’ve been… • Draft 00 of the CAPWAP protocol defined two separate UDP ports for control and data • Scott Kelly identified an issue with regards to NAT traversal, and proposed the MUX • The NAT issue is that lack of activity on the data channel can cause the NAT to free up the source UDP port

  3. The MUX proposal issues… • Quality of Service • Many networks have infrastructure that prioritize based on 5 tupple • Routers and switches do not understand the MUX header, and cannot provide differentiated services based on the bits in the header. • Having the control and data traffic clearly identified via UDP ports allows existing network to continue to do their job…

  4. The MUX proposal issues… • Scaling Issues • As enterprise WLAN networks continue to grow, the market will demand scalable systems • The protocol must be capable of having a single control channel (terminated in a central processor), with data channels from various WTPs terminate in separate processors/hardware • The use of UDP ports allows vendors to use existing classification hardware.

  5. The MUX proposal issues… • ToS/DSCP based switching • Other tunneling protocols have identified issues when the control and data plane are marked differently • Certain networks switch packets on links based on their priority marking • If a link on which the data frames are switched is down, there is nothing in the protocol that allows the AC or WTP to know an issue exists • Adding Keepalive to the data channel is necessary for diagnostics purposes • PWE and L2TP are now looking at adopting Pseudo Wire Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV), which would be ideal for CAPWAP as well

  6. Keepalive on the data channel • Adding a keepalive on the data channel addresses the NAT traversal and the diagnostics issue • An addition set of rules in the spec will be required to define behavior how to reset the data channel (in case the NAT drops the port)

More Related